Quoted from DustinBowcot Maths was never my strongpoint... as soon as it moved into pythagoras and complicated algebra, I gave up. I've also forgotten all the rest aside from the basics. However, even if Jeff is correct with the numbers, then it is possible that my theory on the psychology of the reviewers may be the reason. Many writers that had weaknesses in their own criteria would have been easier on the other writers - in the hope that they also get a 5. So, people were getting 5s when they should have had 1s. It is a factor that has not been counted in. I don't know how to do that. Well, I probably could.... I just can't be arsed as maths hurts my head.

Yeah, it's a mind numbing topic. The only reason I continued with it was that Jeff had a theory that (a) a 1.77 difference between top and bottom was a problem and (b) because that means it is not following the classic "Bell Curve" philosophy. i.e., there's something wrong.

First - you are correct in your premise.  Bell curves are only applicable in what are called normal
distributions. They (normal) really only occur when there are not significant influences on the data being measured, A great example is the roll of two dice.  Let's say you roll them a 1000 times to see what number comes up.

The number seven will always be in the dead center of the curve (highest probable outcome), two and twelve will always be at the far ends. i.e., That;s because there are no other parameters or influences to account for. Now - if you load those same dice - your bell curve is screwed.

Classic bell curves generally don't result where there are influences. i.e., those areas where talent, vision, IQ, etc make an impact. A classic example would be student grades. They don't result in classic bell curves, especially as you get into private schools.

Although you claim to dislike math (although many chess players are math junkies) you did hit the nail on the head here:

Quoted Text .... my theory on the psychology of the reviewers may be the reason. Many writers that had weaknesses in their own criteria would have been easier on the other writers - in the hope that they also get a 5.

Exactly and another reason you wouldn't see a bell curve. Along with other subjective characteristics of each reviewer.

Long winded way of saying that from a statistical perspective - the lack of a bell curve in the distribution of scores or a deviation from top to bottom of less than the middle point (e.g., 1.77 vs vs 2.5)  means absolutely foking nothing in terms of the validity of the scoring.

I need to drink less coffee in the morning.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Thanks for the love people - I didn't put up that post to have my ego stroked, honest   I guess I looked at the thread at the wrong time, the latest posts were calling people rats and insinuating that a writer commenting on his own script thread was somehow nefarious. I sat there for a few minutes thinking "Wtf is going on? I thought we were adult writers, competing in a fun tournament about bobble-heads and hand sanitiser, why is this so toxic?" I didn't want to carry on contributing to the tournament with one eye looking over my shoulder thinking "Better not put that in my review, might get accused of favouritism" - "Better not give this a high score, might get accused of collusion" - "I hope I don't top the rankings next round, I'll have fingers pointed at me, or slammed for not deserving the spot" Bell curve - People are aware that you can still have a bell curve with a low standard deviation, right? as in - doesn't matter if the difference between top and bottom is 1.75 or 3.0 - with normal distribution it still creates a bell curve, one would just be thinner and taller than the other. Oh and I want to echo something LC said about making the parameters a little more production friendly - Aeroplane location may be fun to write, but I can image expensive as hell for a 5 minute short - I wouldn't want to reduce the difficulty, but more budget friendly locations might be nice - after all, if we get usable shorts from this AND still keep it as a challenge, win-win.

Matthew - great to see you back in. You're a solid writer and a terrific reviewer.

Quoted from ReneC Maybe we can give the math theory a rest and just go with the flow. We aren't going to get the data so it's all conjecture. I choose to have faith in the process and our Grand Overloard Sean and the Almighty Don have put in place. This isn't their first rodeo.

I had calculated that there was a 86.7% chance that someone would make this statement with a 92.5% chance that it would be responded to on an average of five minutes, plus or minus one standard deviation.

I will cease math theory

Thanks to Warren and LC for their nice comments. Appreciate that.

People have different ways of scoring these. I didn't expect to hand out any 5's and I did not. For me, a five means a home run in that criteria. Hard to do in 72 hours with the other limitations. But I also didn't hand out many 1's. I don't think I gave any in the second round, maybe 2 in the first round. I gave out a ton of 2's and 3's.

I think some people took the approach if they liked a script they gave 5's, if they hated it 1's. I'm basing that on the comments, I don't know.

As Dave said, if scoring well means a lot to you, there are strategies. Yes, there is probably some communication between contestants. Not in my case because I'm only friends with Dena and Pia, and they didn't play in this. But there are other strategies. For one thing, don't use this to break rules or conventions. It won't piss every reader off, but plenty it will. Other possible strategies: low character count, simple story, limited exposition, no flashbacks(writers are taught to hate those).

Another sneaky strategy, which I don't recommend, is to comment early on your own and give it glowing praise. This can be very effective because a lot of people read the first couple of comments before they read the script. If a reader starts out his read with a positive expectation they are much more likely to have a positive read.

Quoted from eldave1 I had calculated that there was a 86.7% chance that someone would make this statement with a 92.5% chance that it would be responded to on an average of five minutes, plus or minus one standard deviation. I will cease math theory

86.2% of statistics are made up on the spot  

Quoted from FrankM 86.2% of statistics are made up on the spot

Nice!

I'm not one of those players that likes math, although most definitely are. Chess can be just as much about creativity as calculation. I know a maths professor who plays regularly for his club as well as the county on occasion and he's around the same level as my 11-year-old son is currently. My 13-year-old is better than me now. Neither of my kids particularly like math either.

I suppose calculating numbers just isn't as exciting as outsmarting your opponent in a game of strategy and tactics.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I suppose calculating numbers just isn't as exciting as outsmarting your opponent in a game of strategy and tactics.

I love strategy games. But I can't see the use of applying to a competition where the writers judge each other. So what happens if you come to a script that you know will score well, do you give it 1's just to help your script gain position?

Didn’t mean to poke an issue that was settling down, just was away for a bit (intermittent access to mobile Internet) and stats is a part of my day job.

I spend about half my time doing stats, another half researching, another half teaching, and another half doing professional service like evaluating grants and others’ research. Which adds up to over 100% because I’m busy

Quoted from DustinBowcot I'm not one of those players that likes math, although most definitely are. Chess can be just as much about creativity as calculation. I know a maths professor who plays regularly for his club as well as the county on occasion and he's around the same level as my 11-year-old son is currently. My 13-year-old is better than me now. Neither of my kids particularly like math either. I suppose calculating numbers just isn't as exciting as outsmarting your opponent in a game of strategy and tactics.

No, Chess is definitely more rewarding than math. But really requires imagine and creative thinking.

As a kid, I got top scores in math and by brother was abysmal. He always kicked my ass in chess. My guess is that he could have done much better in math, but it was much more fun to  kick his brother's ass in chess.

Cool that your kids are interested.

Quoted from leitskev I love strategy games. But I can't see the use of applying to a competition where the writers judge each other. So what happens if you come to a script that you know will score well, do you give it 1's just to help your script gain position?

No.

I would suggest that if people are employing strategy in their scoring or reviews... they're doing the challenge wrong.

This thing is designed to motivate us to write, to help each other get better and to slowly improve our own writing.

Anything beyond that is silliness.

The competition aspect is for motivation. Attempting to falsely pump your own script runs counter to that.

And, seriously, I doubt anyone is doing these things anyway. So, sound and fury signifying nothing in my book.

Quoted from PKCardinal I would suggest that if people are employing strategy in their scoring or reviews... they're doing the challenge wrong. This thing is designed to motivate us to write, to help each other get better and to slowly improve our own writing. Anything beyond that is silliness. The competition aspect is for motivation. Attempting to falsely pump your own script runs counter to that. And, seriously, I doubt anyone is doing these things anyway. So, sound and fury signifying nothing in my book.

Yes!

Will we be getting an updated writer leaderboard this round?